Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-14 Thread UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
Glenn wrote: Thanks for confirming that the FOCP members were told in 2001 that there would be opportunities for further participation before the UCD plan would be implemented. That is in fact very important. I'm actually much more accepting of what final outcomes would be approved for Clark

RE: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread J. Matthew Wolfe
Of Anthony West Sent: July 12, 2007 10:46 PM To: University City List Subject: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works In January 2002, I was more clueless than Ray about the Clark Park renewal plan. The young reporter who got the facts mixed up certainly knew more than I did at that time! I knew

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Glenn
: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works While I will not say that the vote by the membership to rescind the FOCP Board's endorsement of the plan was so close that we needed a recount, it was a lot closer than a 2-1 loss. It was a close vote. But it was a fair vote and it did not carry

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Brian Siano
Glenn wrote: You may remember that the proponents of the UCD plan claimed that it was too late to do a plan honestly including the participation of FOCP members or park stakeholders. They lied by insisting the plan was dead with no action scheduled. They also insisted that before any

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Glenn
' UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works Glenn wrote: You may remember that the proponents of the UCD plan claimed that it was too late to do a plan honestly including the participation of FOCP members or park

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Anthony West
3 to 2, perhaps. Ah, those were the days, Matt! -- Tony West J. Matthew Wolfe wrote: While I will not say that the vote by the membership to rescind the FOCP Board's endorsement of the plan was so close that we needed a recount, it was a lot closer than a 2-1 loss. It was a close vote. But

RE: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Mike V.
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:38 AM To: J. Matthew Wolfe; 'Anthony West'; 'University City List' Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works Thanks Matt, It's refreshing to see an honest account and I

RE: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread J. Matthew Wolfe
] 4256 Regent Square Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 387-7300 -Original Message- From: Glenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:38 AM To: J. Matthew Wolfe; 'Anthony West'; 'University City List' Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works Thanks Matt, It's

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Brian Siano
J. Matthew Wolfe wrote: Generally, I think that this has moved as was stated. For example, the master plan refused to state that the merger of the playground and the tot lot would not decrease the amount of open green space. When the two spaces were merged, they probably did take up more

Re: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works

2007-07-13 Thread Glenn
' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'University City List' UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:29 PM Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: [UC] How park planning really works First, I really do not see much reason to get involved in this discussion as it has unfortunately become so ridiculous that I do